"The homogeneity of the European nation is fundamentally against the interests of the Jewish people. We are at a critical turning point in history. The West is becoming more and more diverse, and soon the White race wll be forced into submission. The future of the west is that of an ethnically diverse melting pot, where the evil divisions of race and white supremacy no longer regn. This is all thanks to the tremendous power of our social movements and institutions. This great change wll be catalyzed by Moslem settlement. From the land of Israel, Jews wll forever be a light unto the new monoracial world as guaranteed by G-d."Via the Thinking Housewife
Rabbi Abarron Haviv, at the World Jewish Congress Summit, 2011
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Monday, July 30, 2018
"Rabbinic Wisdom"
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Incompatibilities
Trudeau at the Al Sunnah Al-Nabawiah mosque, Quebec 2014
From Mark Richardson's Oz Conservative:
Another good find by Conservative Thoughts (Konservative Gedanken), this time by Collin Cleary:The liberal “celebration of diversity” is in fact a celebration of culture only in its external and superficial forms. In other words, to Western liberals “multiculturalism” winds up amounting simply to such things as the co-existence of different costumes, music, styles of dance, languages, and food. But the real guts of the different cultures consist in such things as how they view nature, how they view the divine, how they view men and women, and how they view the relative importance of their own group in the scheme of things. And it is by no means clear that members of cultures with radically different views on these matters can peacefully co-exist.
Unless, of course all cultural differences are eliminated save the purely external, via the transformation of all peoples into homogenized, interchangeable consumers bereft of any deeply-felt convictions. This is, in fact, the hidden global capitalist agenda of multiculturalism, now being cheerfully advanced by useful idiots on the anti-capitalist Left.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Coffee With a Sprinkle of Jihad
Texting With the Syntax of a Jihadi
I was in Starbucks where I managed to find a seat in the corner. It was quite a nice seat considering seating is hard to come by in Starbucks. I started to read from my tablet, and found this article on the Jihadi John.
I then noticed that the guy next to me looked like he could be a Jihadi John.
I started to test him on his accent and comprehension level (if he even understood what I was saying).
Turns out guilty on both counts (accent and comprehension level).
Me: You've got yourself a nice place here.
Guy: (Looks up with a half smile, looking intimidated.)
Me: You have a pretty nice spot.
Guy: I donent no.
I just sat down and momentarily watched him push his fingers around frantically on his phone. I couldn't make out the language, but it looked like the Latin alphabet (not Arabic, although I wonder how one would text in Arabic on a Latin keyboard?)
Me: Is that the new iPhone?
Guy: i-ye-Phoneee?
Still no comprehension. His "i-ye-Phonee" sounded Hispanic.
Me: You don't speak English?
Guy: Englishi?
Me: Where are you from?
Guy: Colombia.
I returned to my tablet, and continued to drink my coffee.
He was glancing back and forth at me (I guess he thought he could chat me up or something, and wasn't astute enough to realize that I wasn't asking him pleasantries):
"Where do you work?"
"Near Walmart, like this..."
"Ah, McDonalds."
"Where is your family?"
"In Montreal and here."
All this with ample sign language and repeated words. I speak good enough Spanish, but I wasn't about to make things easy for him.
Such is the state of our Multi-Culti land.
And I still don't trust him.
What is to stop him from joining Arab Muslims, whom he greatly resembles, to find himself a welcoming community in this land of those evil, racist whites?
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
How the Muslim world is being left behind: Why each new terror attack only further marginalizes the Muslim world
The article below is from the recent Macleans, a Canadian weekly current affairs magazine. I've posted the entire article, which is online, since I don't know for how long it will remain online (the alternative is to subscribe to Macleans online,or to buy the magazine. I was going to buy the print edition today, but forgot to do so).
I have a few of criticisms on the article:
1. Why not call the Charlie Hebdo killers Jihadists? They are committed Muslims who are following the madates of the Koran. They have a religious motive, and not a political or personal vendetta.
2. There is much written about the glories of the Muslim world as Europe lived in the dark ages of the Medieval times. I think this is not entirely accurate. The Muslim world has never been as advanced as some Islamic historians opine, and much of their knowledge was borrowed from Christian or Jewish scholars. I will expand on this later.
3. Gilmore describes the combative jihadist activities of Muslims as "terrorist" activities by a few
4. He at times blames the jihadist behavior of Muslims to foreign activities. But jihadist Muslim activity has always occurred whether Muslims were being oppressed, whether there is regional war in the Middle East, or if the West somehow insults Islam.
Other than that, I think it is as straight forward an article we can get from apologist western journalists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the Muslim world is being left behind
Scott Gilmore
Macleans Magazine
January 14, 2015
July 2013: Damaged buildings in front of the Khaled bin Walid mosque, Homs, Syria (Sam Skaine, Getty)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the morning of the shooting at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, Maclean’s contributor Scott Gilmore filed this column. In the Jan. 29 issue of the magazine, he expands on his argument:
On Jan. 7, Islamist gunmen ran through the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo screaming “The Prophet is avenged!” By coincidence, at the very moment they were killing the journalists, the International Space Station passed silently over Paris.
Consider that for a moment.
As terrorists committed a primitive act of tribal savagery in the name of a prophet who lived 1,400 years ago, right above them, orbiting through space, was the most sophisticated expression of mankind’s ability to transcend ignorance and fear with hope and reason.
Twenty-five nations from around the world have come together to build the space station. They include old enemies who fought each other for centuries over God and gold, Cold War rivals, small countries and large. But none are Islamic nations.
It has become a cliché to point out that science and reason once flourished in the Islamic world. Nonetheless, it is true. While Europe stumbled through the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars made dramatic advances in every field of science including mathematics, optics and experimental physics. Our modern world was built on the scientific breakthroughs of Islam. From the eighth century, mathematicians such as Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, who helped develop algebra, there is a direct line of progress that ends with the space station itself. But we no longer associate Islam with progress. In fact, a Muslim astronaut would surprise us as much as a non-Muslim terrorist (although there are many examples of each).
When the Parisian police siege ended on the blood-smeared floor of a kosher supermarket, the Prophet had not been avenged. He was diminished. This terrorist attack, and the others before it, merely isolated the Islamic world further from the global mainstream. In its aftermath, we and our leaders repeat, again and again, “Not all Muslims”—and yet we collectively treat Muslim nations as a threat that must be contained. Equal members of the global community? No. Partners in the space program? Impossible.
The Islamic world is in relative decline. Or, more precisely, a large number of countries with a Muslim majority are not developing as rapidly as the rest of the world, and in some cases, like Syria, they are even regressing.
This is a golden age for most. In the last 100 years life expectancy has more than doubled. In the last 50 years the poverty rate has fallen by 80 per cent. During that same time, the number of wars fell by a similar figure and the number of nations governed democratically tripled.
But, while the global community leapt forward, Islamic nations (as defined as members of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation) have progressed at a much slower pace. This is the case across a wide variety of metrics.
The Social Progress Index, a comprehensive measurement of a nation’s well-being, which includes everything from access to water to freedom of movement, ranks Islamic countries behind every other region in the world, including non-Muslim African countries. The Muslim world does even worse on Transparency International’s Perceptions of Corruption Index. Life expectancy numbers are among the world’s lowest, more than 15 years fewer than North America. And, not surprisingly, on a per capita basis, Muslim nations publish scientific papers at less than one-tenth the frequency of Europeans.
If we are surprised by these numbers, Najmuddin Shaikh is not. The former foreign secretary of Pakistan recently lamented, “The Islamic world is in disarray and decline and that Muslim communities find themselves under siege-like conditions in the West and elsewhere is perhaps an understatement.”
Why has the Muslim world been unable to keep pace? Why is it besieged? The easiest response is to say they did this to themselves. The evidence of this is so pervasive it is hard to refute. For example, just last week alone, while the world was focused on France, there were dozens of other terrorist attacks where Muslims killed Muslims.
In Yemen, a large group of young men were applying for entry into the police academy. They were queued up along a stone wall, which intensified the blast of a car bomb - 33 died.
In Iraq, a wholesale market is held every Saturday morning in Baghdad’s western district of Baiyaa. There a bomb killed five. Later that morning another blast killed three more people in the nearby town of Madian.
In Lebanon, on the same day, a suicide bomber walked up to the crowded Omran Café in Tripoli and triggered his vest. Bloodied survivors were pulling themselves out of the rubble when a second bomber stepped in amongst them. There were nine dead and 37 injured.
In Pakistan, as people gathered to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday by distributing alms at a mosque in Rawalpindi, a bomber pushed his way in. The blast shattered all the nearby windows and killed seven.
In Nigeria, militants wrapped explosives around the midriff of a small 10-year old girl, and told her to walk into the market. When she reached the stalls where the chickens are sold, it went off, killing 19.
This is an incomplete list, from just last week, but it illustrates the broader story well. Internecine conflict in the Islamic world is endemic. The unrelenting Shia and Sunni schism dominates it, but it also includes tribal and ethnic divides. In 2013, there were 12 Western victims of terror attacks compared to 22,000 non-Western fatalities. These do not include those killed by the barrel bombs that Syrian President Assad dropped on his own people, or civilians killed by warfare in Afghanistan or Iraq. From the jungles of Sulawesi to the deserts of Libya, Muslims are killing Muslims at a rate that dwarfs the more highly publicized conflict with the West. In that light, it is hard to subscribe to the theory this is a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is one culture turning on itself.
The self-inflicted wounds are not always violent. The Taliban banned girls from being educated. In Syria, Islamic State closed all schools. In 2013, militants in Mali burned the fabled and ancient libraries of Timbuktu. In a speech just days before the Paris attacks, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi pleaded for an end to this self-destruction: “The Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands.”
Focusing just on the violence does not take into account the broader context, the economic and geographic circumstances in which these countries find themselves. The Maghreb (northwest Africa), the Arabian Peninsula, the Central Asia steppes, the Gulf of Guinea, the Indus valley, the Indonesian archipelago: each of these presents different but equally daunting barriers to building modern economies and functioning states. Whether it is drought or monsoons, a lack of harbours or impassible mountain ranges, the Islamic world was not dealt the best geographic hand.
It has faced economic hurdles, too. The international demand for heroin has created a lucrative but destructive poppy trade that the United States and all its allies could not even slow. Similarly, but perhaps less dramatically, the oil reserves of the Middle East and West Africa have been both a blessing and a curse, fuelling building booms, corruption and instability.
There are also the historical circumstances that must be acknowledged. The legacy of disastrous foreign intervention is everywhere. For hundreds of years the Dutch treated Indonesia as a warehouse, merely to be raided for its wealth, forestalling the evolution of local institutions. When independence came, dictators Sukarno and Suharto merely perfected what the Dutch had begun.
Bangladesh faced a similar colonial legacy, but one that was followed by partition and a brutal civil war. The elites who emerged redefined corruption, and it is difficult to judge which has done more damage: the typhoons or the politicians.
Further west, the arbitrarily drawn Durand Line was established in the 19th century to separate Pakistan and Afghanistan by cutting right through the Pashtun homeland. This colonial relic has remained a festering wound that makes both countries virtually ungovernable.
A similar exercise produced a comparable result in the Middle East. The secretly negotiated Sykes-Picot Agreement, creating spheres of influence for the Great Powers during the First World War, produced fractious borders and lit a bonfire of ethnic and sectarian violence that this week burned the Baiyaa market and the Omran Café.
Even recent history has been unkind to the Islamic world. The U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan exploded into regional instability. repeated conflicts with Israel have drained meagre budgets from militaries who spend most of their time blaming Zionist conspiracies for the repressive chaos they themselves create at home.
When one considers the heavy weight of these extenuating circumstances, it is easier to see that the terrorism of the last 20 years is not the reason the Islamic world has been left behind. But it is perhaps the reason it is staying there.
Lockerbie. Embassies in Africa. Sept. 11. Subways in London. A memorial in Ottawa. A café in Sydney. A magazine in Paris. We have witnessed a steady series of attacks against the West. Some of these were large and well-organized conspiracies, others lone-wolf attacks by mentally unstable men with tenuous connections to Islam. But they had the same effect: to provoke a fear in the West that Islam is a threat, and the impression that the Muslim world is not a partner, but a challenge to be managed.
We, and our governments, don’t say this. In fact, we do all we can to make it appear otherwise. We talk about engagement and launch various initiatives to build “constructive dialogue.” These are just euphemisms.
President Barack Obama wanted to use the space program as a tool to engage the Islamic world. He instructed NASA to help Muslim nations “feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” In Canada, we reached out by, among other things, naming a special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) and by sending its member countries over $12 billion in aid since 2002. During that same period, the United States sent $137 billion.
These efforts were not about expanding mutually beneficial relations with peers to create new opportunities. They were about preventing problems and neutralizing a threat. Most of our energy has gone into isolating, not engaging, the Islamic world. Compare, for example, what has been spent on intelligence, homeland security and military operations. Since 9/11, Canada tripled its spy budget and spent $18 billion sending troops to Afghanistan. The United States spent between $4 trillion and $6 trillion on military campaigns (including Iraq)—over 25 times more than they spent on engaging through aid.
With every act of terror, we push the Muslim world farther way. We launch more drones. We deploy more troops. We fortify more embassies. We watch more mosques. We accept fewer refugees. We issue fewer visas.
A passport from an Islamic nation is less welcome than one from any other region of the world. Citizens of the OIC enjoy visa-free travel to fewer countries than anyone else. This small fact tells a much larger story about the lack of interpersonal contact between Islamic nations and the rest of the world. It illustrates the fear that some of us feel when we see that the man boarding the flight ahead of us is wearing a shalwar kameez. It highlights the difficulty any of us have had bringing Muslim colleagues to international conferences, or transferring money to business partners in the Middle East. It makes us realize we can’t remember the last time someone talked about going to Egypt to see the pyramids. And it explains why last year less than two per cent of the visitors to Canada were from the Islamic world, despite those countries comprising 25 per cent of the world’s population.
It is not just the West. Russia, China, India: all the global powers have developed similar postures toward the Islamic world. Occasionally, although less frequently than the West, they talk about engagement. But really, like us, their strategy is primarily focused on containment.
The isolation also exists at the multilateral level. Only 19 per cent of global economies are not members of the World Trade Organization, but that short list is dominated by Islamic nations. The centrally important Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has only one Islamic member: Turkey. Canada belongs to 207 international organizations. The average Islamic nation belongs to about half that, making them less connected and included than are European, Latin American, Caribbean and Asian countries.
Of course, it is not all containment. The international community does engage more constructively with some Islamic countries than with others. For example, while Malaysia is not a member of the International Space Station partnership, it did second an astronaut to Russia, who then sent him to the space station. Turkey is not only a member of the OECD, it is also part of NATO. (But is hard to imagine it being invited to join today, given that just this week the United States cancelled the transfer of two frigates to the Turkish navy, due to growing concerns about its Islamist tendencies.)
The United States and Canada are negotiating with Indonesia so that we can enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. And Western oil companies are deeply entrenched in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. But these exceptions prove the rule. Unless you are among the most moderate members of the OIC, or drowning in oil, the international community is not interested.
Ironically, this isolation may be what the extremists actually want. Many of the terrorist attacks were meant to drive a wedge between the Muslim world and the West, to eliminate the degenerate influences of the outside. They want to be left behind, or at least left alone.
Can we change this dynamic? Will we continue to pull back from the Muslim world? It is difficult to find signs that this pattern can be broken. Our economies now depend on trillion-dollar industries whose sole purpose is to protect us from the Islamist threat by building better body scanners and faster cruise missiles. Our own governments have restructured themselves as vigilant watchdogs, safeguarding us from terror. Even as the Paris attacks were still unfolding, the Canadian government was announcing even more anti-terror legislation. And our political institutions have been rewired, dramatically shifting the balance between our personal freedom and our collective security. All of this is intended to build blast-proof walls between us and them.
But perhaps, if we realize that with every terrorist attack our collective instincts to contain the Muslim world grows stronger, we can change this. It would take some patience and courage on our part, and a few leaps of faith, to increase the free flow of our peoples and in their wake, perhaps ideas and values. Of course, it would also require an effort on the part of Islamic nations to reach out, too. We can’t drag them into the OECD.
Terrorists like those who captured our attention in France are not responsible for the relative decline of the Islamic world, but they are prolonging its isolation. This attack and all the others before it have compelled the international community to instinctively respond by containing the threat. But this is merely palliative. As the Muslim world is further contained, it becomes further alienated from the global community, and it falls further behind. This trend must change. We must recognize that as mankind moves further into space, some of us are being left behind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
I have a few of criticisms on the article:
1. Why not call the Charlie Hebdo killers Jihadists? They are committed Muslims who are following the madates of the Koran. They have a religious motive, and not a political or personal vendetta.
2. There is much written about the glories of the Muslim world as Europe lived in the dark ages of the Medieval times. I think this is not entirely accurate. The Muslim world has never been as advanced as some Islamic historians opine, and much of their knowledge was borrowed from Christian or Jewish scholars. I will expand on this later.
3. Gilmore describes the combative jihadist activities of Muslims as "terrorist" activities by a few
4. He at times blames the jihadist behavior of Muslims to foreign activities. But jihadist Muslim activity has always occurred whether Muslims were being oppressed, whether there is regional war in the Middle East, or if the West somehow insults Islam.
Other than that, I think it is as straight forward an article we can get from apologist western journalists.
How the Muslim world is being left behind
Scott Gilmore
Macleans Magazine
January 14, 2015
July 2013: Damaged buildings in front of the Khaled bin Walid mosque, Homs, Syria (Sam Skaine, Getty)
On the morning of the shooting at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, Maclean’s contributor Scott Gilmore filed this column. In the Jan. 29 issue of the magazine, he expands on his argument:
On Jan. 7, Islamist gunmen ran through the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo screaming “The Prophet is avenged!” By coincidence, at the very moment they were killing the journalists, the International Space Station passed silently over Paris.
Consider that for a moment.
As terrorists committed a primitive act of tribal savagery in the name of a prophet who lived 1,400 years ago, right above them, orbiting through space, was the most sophisticated expression of mankind’s ability to transcend ignorance and fear with hope and reason.
Twenty-five nations from around the world have come together to build the space station. They include old enemies who fought each other for centuries over God and gold, Cold War rivals, small countries and large. But none are Islamic nations.
It has become a cliché to point out that science and reason once flourished in the Islamic world. Nonetheless, it is true. While Europe stumbled through the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars made dramatic advances in every field of science including mathematics, optics and experimental physics. Our modern world was built on the scientific breakthroughs of Islam. From the eighth century, mathematicians such as Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, who helped develop algebra, there is a direct line of progress that ends with the space station itself. But we no longer associate Islam with progress. In fact, a Muslim astronaut would surprise us as much as a non-Muslim terrorist (although there are many examples of each).
When the Parisian police siege ended on the blood-smeared floor of a kosher supermarket, the Prophet had not been avenged. He was diminished. This terrorist attack, and the others before it, merely isolated the Islamic world further from the global mainstream. In its aftermath, we and our leaders repeat, again and again, “Not all Muslims”—and yet we collectively treat Muslim nations as a threat that must be contained. Equal members of the global community? No. Partners in the space program? Impossible.
The Islamic world is in relative decline. Or, more precisely, a large number of countries with a Muslim majority are not developing as rapidly as the rest of the world, and in some cases, like Syria, they are even regressing.
This is a golden age for most. In the last 100 years life expectancy has more than doubled. In the last 50 years the poverty rate has fallen by 80 per cent. During that same time, the number of wars fell by a similar figure and the number of nations governed democratically tripled.
But, while the global community leapt forward, Islamic nations (as defined as members of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation) have progressed at a much slower pace. This is the case across a wide variety of metrics.
The Social Progress Index, a comprehensive measurement of a nation’s well-being, which includes everything from access to water to freedom of movement, ranks Islamic countries behind every other region in the world, including non-Muslim African countries. The Muslim world does even worse on Transparency International’s Perceptions of Corruption Index. Life expectancy numbers are among the world’s lowest, more than 15 years fewer than North America. And, not surprisingly, on a per capita basis, Muslim nations publish scientific papers at less than one-tenth the frequency of Europeans.
If we are surprised by these numbers, Najmuddin Shaikh is not. The former foreign secretary of Pakistan recently lamented, “The Islamic world is in disarray and decline and that Muslim communities find themselves under siege-like conditions in the West and elsewhere is perhaps an understatement.”
Why has the Muslim world been unable to keep pace? Why is it besieged? The easiest response is to say they did this to themselves. The evidence of this is so pervasive it is hard to refute. For example, just last week alone, while the world was focused on France, there were dozens of other terrorist attacks where Muslims killed Muslims.
In Yemen, a large group of young men were applying for entry into the police academy. They were queued up along a stone wall, which intensified the blast of a car bomb - 33 died.
In Iraq, a wholesale market is held every Saturday morning in Baghdad’s western district of Baiyaa. There a bomb killed five. Later that morning another blast killed three more people in the nearby town of Madian.
In Lebanon, on the same day, a suicide bomber walked up to the crowded Omran Café in Tripoli and triggered his vest. Bloodied survivors were pulling themselves out of the rubble when a second bomber stepped in amongst them. There were nine dead and 37 injured.
In Pakistan, as people gathered to celebrate the Prophet’s birthday by distributing alms at a mosque in Rawalpindi, a bomber pushed his way in. The blast shattered all the nearby windows and killed seven.
In Nigeria, militants wrapped explosives around the midriff of a small 10-year old girl, and told her to walk into the market. When she reached the stalls where the chickens are sold, it went off, killing 19.
This is an incomplete list, from just last week, but it illustrates the broader story well. Internecine conflict in the Islamic world is endemic. The unrelenting Shia and Sunni schism dominates it, but it also includes tribal and ethnic divides. In 2013, there were 12 Western victims of terror attacks compared to 22,000 non-Western fatalities. These do not include those killed by the barrel bombs that Syrian President Assad dropped on his own people, or civilians killed by warfare in Afghanistan or Iraq. From the jungles of Sulawesi to the deserts of Libya, Muslims are killing Muslims at a rate that dwarfs the more highly publicized conflict with the West. In that light, it is hard to subscribe to the theory this is a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is one culture turning on itself.
The self-inflicted wounds are not always violent. The Taliban banned girls from being educated. In Syria, Islamic State closed all schools. In 2013, militants in Mali burned the fabled and ancient libraries of Timbuktu. In a speech just days before the Paris attacks, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi pleaded for an end to this self-destruction: “The Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands.”
Focusing just on the violence does not take into account the broader context, the economic and geographic circumstances in which these countries find themselves. The Maghreb (northwest Africa), the Arabian Peninsula, the Central Asia steppes, the Gulf of Guinea, the Indus valley, the Indonesian archipelago: each of these presents different but equally daunting barriers to building modern economies and functioning states. Whether it is drought or monsoons, a lack of harbours or impassible mountain ranges, the Islamic world was not dealt the best geographic hand.
It has faced economic hurdles, too. The international demand for heroin has created a lucrative but destructive poppy trade that the United States and all its allies could not even slow. Similarly, but perhaps less dramatically, the oil reserves of the Middle East and West Africa have been both a blessing and a curse, fuelling building booms, corruption and instability.
There are also the historical circumstances that must be acknowledged. The legacy of disastrous foreign intervention is everywhere. For hundreds of years the Dutch treated Indonesia as a warehouse, merely to be raided for its wealth, forestalling the evolution of local institutions. When independence came, dictators Sukarno and Suharto merely perfected what the Dutch had begun.
Bangladesh faced a similar colonial legacy, but one that was followed by partition and a brutal civil war. The elites who emerged redefined corruption, and it is difficult to judge which has done more damage: the typhoons or the politicians.
Further west, the arbitrarily drawn Durand Line was established in the 19th century to separate Pakistan and Afghanistan by cutting right through the Pashtun homeland. This colonial relic has remained a festering wound that makes both countries virtually ungovernable.
A similar exercise produced a comparable result in the Middle East. The secretly negotiated Sykes-Picot Agreement, creating spheres of influence for the Great Powers during the First World War, produced fractious borders and lit a bonfire of ethnic and sectarian violence that this week burned the Baiyaa market and the Omran Café.
Even recent history has been unkind to the Islamic world. The U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan exploded into regional instability. repeated conflicts with Israel have drained meagre budgets from militaries who spend most of their time blaming Zionist conspiracies for the repressive chaos they themselves create at home.
When one considers the heavy weight of these extenuating circumstances, it is easier to see that the terrorism of the last 20 years is not the reason the Islamic world has been left behind. But it is perhaps the reason it is staying there.
Lockerbie. Embassies in Africa. Sept. 11. Subways in London. A memorial in Ottawa. A café in Sydney. A magazine in Paris. We have witnessed a steady series of attacks against the West. Some of these were large and well-organized conspiracies, others lone-wolf attacks by mentally unstable men with tenuous connections to Islam. But they had the same effect: to provoke a fear in the West that Islam is a threat, and the impression that the Muslim world is not a partner, but a challenge to be managed.
We, and our governments, don’t say this. In fact, we do all we can to make it appear otherwise. We talk about engagement and launch various initiatives to build “constructive dialogue.” These are just euphemisms.
President Barack Obama wanted to use the space program as a tool to engage the Islamic world. He instructed NASA to help Muslim nations “feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” In Canada, we reached out by, among other things, naming a special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) and by sending its member countries over $12 billion in aid since 2002. During that same period, the United States sent $137 billion.
These efforts were not about expanding mutually beneficial relations with peers to create new opportunities. They were about preventing problems and neutralizing a threat. Most of our energy has gone into isolating, not engaging, the Islamic world. Compare, for example, what has been spent on intelligence, homeland security and military operations. Since 9/11, Canada tripled its spy budget and spent $18 billion sending troops to Afghanistan. The United States spent between $4 trillion and $6 trillion on military campaigns (including Iraq)—over 25 times more than they spent on engaging through aid.
With every act of terror, we push the Muslim world farther way. We launch more drones. We deploy more troops. We fortify more embassies. We watch more mosques. We accept fewer refugees. We issue fewer visas.
A passport from an Islamic nation is less welcome than one from any other region of the world. Citizens of the OIC enjoy visa-free travel to fewer countries than anyone else. This small fact tells a much larger story about the lack of interpersonal contact between Islamic nations and the rest of the world. It illustrates the fear that some of us feel when we see that the man boarding the flight ahead of us is wearing a shalwar kameez. It highlights the difficulty any of us have had bringing Muslim colleagues to international conferences, or transferring money to business partners in the Middle East. It makes us realize we can’t remember the last time someone talked about going to Egypt to see the pyramids. And it explains why last year less than two per cent of the visitors to Canada were from the Islamic world, despite those countries comprising 25 per cent of the world’s population.
It is not just the West. Russia, China, India: all the global powers have developed similar postures toward the Islamic world. Occasionally, although less frequently than the West, they talk about engagement. But really, like us, their strategy is primarily focused on containment.
The isolation also exists at the multilateral level. Only 19 per cent of global economies are not members of the World Trade Organization, but that short list is dominated by Islamic nations. The centrally important Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has only one Islamic member: Turkey. Canada belongs to 207 international organizations. The average Islamic nation belongs to about half that, making them less connected and included than are European, Latin American, Caribbean and Asian countries.
Of course, it is not all containment. The international community does engage more constructively with some Islamic countries than with others. For example, while Malaysia is not a member of the International Space Station partnership, it did second an astronaut to Russia, who then sent him to the space station. Turkey is not only a member of the OECD, it is also part of NATO. (But is hard to imagine it being invited to join today, given that just this week the United States cancelled the transfer of two frigates to the Turkish navy, due to growing concerns about its Islamist tendencies.)
The United States and Canada are negotiating with Indonesia so that we can enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. And Western oil companies are deeply entrenched in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. But these exceptions prove the rule. Unless you are among the most moderate members of the OIC, or drowning in oil, the international community is not interested.
Ironically, this isolation may be what the extremists actually want. Many of the terrorist attacks were meant to drive a wedge between the Muslim world and the West, to eliminate the degenerate influences of the outside. They want to be left behind, or at least left alone.
Can we change this dynamic? Will we continue to pull back from the Muslim world? It is difficult to find signs that this pattern can be broken. Our economies now depend on trillion-dollar industries whose sole purpose is to protect us from the Islamist threat by building better body scanners and faster cruise missiles. Our own governments have restructured themselves as vigilant watchdogs, safeguarding us from terror. Even as the Paris attacks were still unfolding, the Canadian government was announcing even more anti-terror legislation. And our political institutions have been rewired, dramatically shifting the balance between our personal freedom and our collective security. All of this is intended to build blast-proof walls between us and them.
But perhaps, if we realize that with every terrorist attack our collective instincts to contain the Muslim world grows stronger, we can change this. It would take some patience and courage on our part, and a few leaps of faith, to increase the free flow of our peoples and in their wake, perhaps ideas and values. Of course, it would also require an effort on the part of Islamic nations to reach out, too. We can’t drag them into the OECD.
Terrorists like those who captured our attention in France are not responsible for the relative decline of the Islamic world, but they are prolonging its isolation. This attack and all the others before it have compelled the international community to instinctively respond by containing the threat. But this is merely palliative. As the Muslim world is further contained, it becomes further alienated from the global community, and it falls further behind. This trend must change. We must recognize that as mankind moves further into space, some of us are being left behind.
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
Friday, January 9, 2015
Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie!
Look at this pathetic collection of westerners, Parisians, FRENCH, who have Général De Gaulle in recent memory, standing there with their little signs!
This is what is going to "set them free?"
Geert Wilders posted this statement on the jihad in France and the murder of the French journalists, at his website, and also the video below:
The West is at war, and should de-Islamize
The assassinations of ten journalists and two policemen today in Paris serve as a warning to all the countries in the free world. We are at war. Charlie Hebdo was under police protection following numerous threats because of its outspoken criticism of Islam. Despite the protection by the police, terrorists were able to murder their opponents.
Western governments have to realize that we are at war. We should no longer show any respect for an ideology that rejects our fundamental values. The only way to defend our democratic values and fundamental freedoms is to start the de-Islamization of our societies.
We have to close our borders, reinstate border controls, get rid of political correctness, introduce administrative detention, and stop immigration from Islamic countries. We must defend ourselves. Enough is enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, January 8, 2015
"I couldn’t give a damn if you offend my religion!"
A Muslim would never say this. Trust a Christian to do so. This is what Michael Coren says in an interview here on his book Hatred: Islam's War on Christianity:
In the modern West, we are all to be equal offenders and equally offended: Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so on. But the reality is that very few cultures are willing to allow their sacred things to be tarnished, and least of all by outsiders. That is why Muslims behave the way they do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOPEZ: People understandably don’t want to offend people and their religion. Is that the wrong way to be looking at things?This is false and wrong. How can anyone stand by and let something sacred to him be desecrated? I have a whole section on "Desecration" in Reclaiming Beauty, where I discuss various artistic attempts at destroying that which is beautiful, and Godly.
COREN: Why? Why, why, why? I couldn’t give a damn if you offend my religion! I am a Catholic and my beliefs are far too strong to be damaged by some cartoon or joke or argument in a book. This fatuous modern notion of “being offended” is a moan, an annoying weep. I am offended, therefore I am. If you don’t like something, don’t read it or watch it. We are not made of glass and we won’t break. All I ask for is an even playing field. What happens now is that it’s fine to offend Christians but not to offend other religions. We have to be careful here. What matters in a healthy democracy is not the protection of feelings but the right to speak one’s mind. Remember, it’s the Left who tend to complain about being offended while habitually abusing the Right.
In the modern West, we are all to be equal offenders and equally offended: Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so on. But the reality is that very few cultures are willing to allow their sacred things to be tarnished, and least of all by outsiders. That is why Muslims behave the way they do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause Célèbre!
Does this look like a Cause Celebre to you?
An email I sent to a correspondent:
Dear...Correspondent:
[H]ere is an email I sent to Michael Coren, who has written a new book titled Hatred: Islam's War on Christianity, and whose lecture I attended last week at the Jewish Defense League. I wrote this reply to his email after he told me to say he cannot find any way to have me on his nightly show.
I gave him good reviews [here and here] for his book at my website, since I didn't want to pick too much at the details.
But, unfortunately, he is of the same ilk as Robert Spencer, Jamie Glasov, David Horowitz, et al. The Islam apologists/Islam destroyers, who never quite took it seriously enough to take what the Koran said as what Muslims really do believe, and who would say things like "destroy radical Islam."
It was a long shot, trying to contact Coren, and perhaps to guage if he really can go the distance with Islam, conservatism, etc, since I really do need supporters here in Canada, and links to publishers. But, it looks like I will have to keep focused on what I'm doing, and doing it as authentically as possible.
Best,
Kidist
I don't know much about this Coren fellow, but much of what drives commercial broadcasting, Tv, and print, is very specific and needs to fit their niche and attract viewers. Perhaps you're viewed as not controversial enough, or too controversial, or too-much-this-and-not-enough-that. It's hard to know. You're not famous and controversial, two things which can help drive media attention. But do keep plugging away. Recall those authors who submitted their book to 30 publishers and were turned down by all, and then one publisher picks it up and has some success. Persistence pays off. Your follow up to Coren is very good. Maybe you could get yourself arrested, or something, to drive some media attention. Just kidding. It is difficult to penetrate the media barrier....Kidist:
I think I'm TOO nice and proper! When I breach out of that, people are actually surprised. Even Laura (of The Thinking Housewife) once said to me that I was full of surprises, and someone else said (it was actually at Jim's (Kalb) dinner) that I don't look like my blog...And here, my correspondent goes through my email, giving his views, and advice:
Yes, I will start to be difficult, obnoxious etc. I thought of reporting Coren for "racism" or better "discrimination" or something. He is discriminating against me because I dare to say that Islam has no place in Canada. He daren't have me say what I think we should do about that (i.e. present Larry's carefully outlined program for how to deal with immigration and Muslims, and Islam). Coren has all kinds of other "minority" groups on his show. How about an Ethiopian, Christian, Westerner!!! I will send an email to that Jamie Glasov of Horowitz and Frontpage Magazine, and other pseudo conservative sites which Coren idolizes.
Now that I'm over the disappointment, I will just "have fun," as the saying goes. And keep on plugging.
KPA:
I think I'm TOO nice and proper!Correspondent:
You do come across as being nice and proper, and a fine thing it is, too, in our liberal culture of abrasive and improper women. I wouldn't like to see you as yet another loud-mouthed, obnoxious chick. A proper conservative man, in a proper conservative society, would properly deplore that. But then, this is hardly a proper conservative society. And then, there was Joan of Arc. And I think Phyliss Schlafly is a fine model of a woman who stands up for civilized values against the rising tide of liberation.KPA:
When I breach out of that, people are actually surprised. Even Laura [of the Thinking Housewife] once said to me that I was full of surprises, and someone else said (it was actually at Jim's [Kalb] dinner) that I don't look like my blog...
Yes, I will start to be difficult, obnoxious etc.Correspondent:
I think you can be effective without having an obnoxious manner. Larry was a good example of that. He always (well, almost always) said what he had to say in a calm, deliberate voice, reasonable, factual, and with great conviction.KPA:
I thought of reporting Coren for "racism" or better "discrimination" or something. He is discriminating against me because I dare to say that Islam has no place in Canada.Correspondent:
We shouldn't try to use illegitimate leftist arguments like "discrimination" against our opponents. It would look like a cynical ploy.KPA:
He daren't have me say what I think we should do about that (i.e. present Larry's carefully outlined program for how to deal with immigration and Muslims, and Islam). Coren has all kinds of other "minority" groups on his show. How about an Ethiopian, Christian, Westerner!!! I will send an email to that Jamie Glasov of Horowitz and Frontpage Magazine, and other pseudo conservative sites which Coren idolizes.Correspondent:
You're at the place Larry arrived at long ago -- the greatest obstacle to defeating liberalism is our own so-called-conservatives, who accept liberal principles like diversity and non-discrimination and merely try to ameliorate the worst symptoms rather than opposing liberalism on fundamental ground.KPA:
Now that I'm over the disappointment, I will just "have fun," as the saying goes. And keep on plugging.Correspondent:
You do have the unique advantage of being a non-Westerner, and a woman, who opposes liberalism. We tend to feel guilty when one of our own, a white man, tries to defend us. But people will be more open to listening when one of the "other" -- a chick! an Ethiopian chick!! -- says non-liberal things. Say it in a quiet, yet firm voice of conviction -- "you so-called-conservative leaders are one of the reasons we're losing". Unfortunately, you'll find the liberals are especially hate-filled towards anyone they perceive to be one of "their own" (and that includes Ethiopian chicks) who goes off the reservation and starts denouncing them and their false religion. It really gets under their skin. Oh, you could get yourself arrested on hate charges, don't you think, in Canada?KPA:
Agreed, 100%.Correspondent:
Thanks for the reality check.
Getting arrested in Canada for hate charges? The sheer confusion would just kill everyone!
"The sheer confusion would just kill everyone!"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, and you'd probably get a lot more hits at your blog! And then Coren and the rest would be falling all over themselves to get you on their shows. Asrat, La Cause Celebre!
:-)
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, September 28, 2014
The Freedom Ideologues
Freedom of Choice Ideologue, Hiris Ali
I wrote a few weeks ago about Ayaan Hiris Ali in Hirsi Ali is no Spokeswoman for the West:
She is not fighting an existential fight, but what looks like a personal one. She spent all these years fighting Islam, compromising herself and endangering her colleagues in order to escape Islam, and the best she can come up with is that she will let her son decide his religion (or no religion), and that she's "hoping it does not happen" that he "choose" Islam. For this declared atheist, the freedom of choice of her son is more important than his spiritual integrity. And this is her fatal problem, making her a dangerous spokesman for the West's survival. She has no armor with which to combat this combative religion other than "freedom of choice."Mark Richardson, at Oz Conservative, continues to write about freedom of choice, and the idea of freedom in the West. He writes this time specifically about incest:
Here again [where incest is considered to be a "fundamental freedom"] we have a problem doing great harm to Western societies. Freedom is held to be the sole, overriding good and freedom is understood in a limited way as individual autonomy. Other goods in society are sacrificed to this one reductive understanding of morality - which means inevitably that people don't even end up feeling free or autonomous.In my post about Ali, I write that giving her son this freedom of choice (to choose his religion), ultimately risks letting her son choose to not be free.
Irrelevant also of Ali's decisions affecting her son, what we should be concerned with these freedom of choice ideologues is that their belief system is flawed, and it is ultimately dangerous to our way of life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Yale's False Supporters
Hirsi Ali in Yale on September 15, 2014
She is surrounded by wood panels of The Sheffield-Sterling-Strachona Auditorium
in Yale, a testament to architect Clark Zantzinger, who fashioned
this after traditional wainscot paneling.
The Sheffield-Sterling-Strachona Auditorium in Yale,
where Hirsi Ali gave her recent lecture
View of the auditorium from the stage
More information on the hall at Yale's website
[scroll down the linked page]
Here is some background on the Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona Hall:
Until 1860 the Medical Institutions was situated in a hotel built by James Hillhouse, at the corner of what are now Prospect and Groves Streets. This building, which Yale purchased for $12,500, later became Sheffield Hall and remained part of the Yale scene until it was removed in 1931 to make way for the Sheffield-Sterling-Strathchona Hall. The location of the new school in this spot marked the beginning of the spread of the college to the north.The architect for the current building is Clark Zantzinger of Zantzinger, Borie & Medary, Architects, who also built:
Yale: A History
Brooks Mather Kelley:
P. 132
Google books
- 1917: Washington Memorial Chapel, Valley Forge National Historical Park, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.With her forceful, but ambiguous message of "freedom of choice," Hirsi Ali stands in the elegant halls of Western academia, but she is not a trustworthy champion of the West.
- 1926-27: Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Now part of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
- 1927-28: Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan
- 1932-35: Department of Justice Building, Washington, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some recent posts I did on Hirsi Ali:
- Creed vs. Conscience
- Hirsi Ali is no Spokeswoman for the West
- Ferguson in America: And His Wry Belief in the Fall of American Power
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hirsi Ali is No Spokeswoman for the West
In my previous post Creed and Conscience, I wrote the following about Hirsi Ali's remark that she would let her son choose his religion when he's old enough to decide:
If she has spent her whole adult life denouncing Islam, and writing about its evils, then why would she want her son to "choose" Islam? It is as though she's hedging her bets, and doesn't want the responsibility of influence a child's life into nihilism. Let him do that for himself!She is not fighting an existential fight, but what looks like a personal one. She spent all these years fighting Islam, compromising herself and endangering her colleagues in order to escape Islam, and the best she can come up with is that she will let her son decide his religion (or no religion), and that she's "hoping it does not happen" that he "choose" Islam. For this declared atheist, the freedom of choice of her son is more important than his spiritual integrity. And this is her fatal problem, making her a dangerous spokesman for the West's survival. She has no armor with which to combat this combative religion other than "freedom of choice."
If her son becomes one of those Muslims living in a Western city, making demands for mosques, Islamic schools, special dietary regulations for Muslims in restaurants and shops, and the myriad of other cultural changes that Islam has been demanding in Western cities, and making her particular Western city into the one that she left behind in Somalia, will she still say "he is free to choose his religion?" What if one day she reads about him in the news, and finds he'd strapped bombs to his chest in the name of Allah?
What an obtuse, and dangerous, woman. It is important that we point out these inconsistencies, rather than naively promote her as the saviour of the West.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Creed Vs. Conscience
Here is a recent photograph of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, at Yale in mid-September, 2014
She looks strained, and her red eyes indicate fatigue, or lack of sleep.
Motherhood, and an activist's life must be taking their toll
After the usual fanfare that follows Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she was finally able to make her speech at Yale University.
I've written about her over the years (see list below), and I've tried to understand her. Finally, this time, I can only say that she's not a very intelligent woman, but has an aggressive personality and is unafraid to "jump in" as she has with many instances both in her private and activist life.
She first came into the limelight in Dutch politics when she publicly denounced Islam, which caused her to go into hiding for fear of her life. But, her outspokenness, even in hiding, caused her to endanger the life of Geert Wilders, another Dutch politician.
Her affair and consequent marriage to British historian Niall Ferguson, broke up his sixteen-year marriage.
Here is her jumbled messages on religion, declaring herself an atheist, at her Yale speech:
Muslim Students Association of Yale, you live in a time when Muslims are at a crossroad. Every single day, there is a headline that forces the Muslim individual to chose between his conscience and his creed. The Muslim world is on fire. And those fanning the fire are using your core creed. With every atrocity they commit, they remind the Muslim of his commitment to submit to Allah. Will you submit, passively or actively, or will you finally stand up to Allah.Is Ali denouncing Islam? Is she trying to find an Islam that suits her? Is she telling people to leave Allah?
One of her theses is that Islam can (should) be "reformed" as Christianity was "reformed." Her theological obtuseness is apparent here, when she compares two very different religions and tries to fashion one like the other ("Islam can be reformed, like Christianity!"). And if it isn't, that is because of the backwardness of Muslims. So in one conceptual fallacy, she manages to insult Christians (Islam is like Christianity), Muslims (Islam can be "reformed" like Christianity), and Muslims again (your religion is barbaric and inhuman). And Christians and Muslims alike, by declaring her theological superiority all the while declaring herself irreligious - an atheist.
While she was expecting her child, she was interviewed by the Globe and Mail about how she would raise him:
Globe And Mail: What if your son decides to follow Islam?Again, with Ali, it is all a jumble. If she has spent her whole adult life denouncing Islam, and writing about its evils, then why would she want her son to "choose" Islam? It is as though she's hedging her bets, and doesn't want the responsibility of influence a child's life into nihilism. Let him do that for himself! And although she declares herself an atheist, it seems that she is passing on theological decisions to him.
Ali:...I have to do what my father and my mother were incapable of doing, which is to say, “Alright, go for it.” I'm hoping it does not happen.
You have to let individuals make their own choices and respect that, even if it's your own child...
I want to be strong enough to tell my son, it's your choice.
Atheists are the biggest hypocrites. They always surreptitiously reveal that they do "believe" after all, if only to hedge their bets.
So will it be her conscience that will tell her son to follow his creed, if that is what he "chooses?"
Here are my previous posts on Ali (dating from 2008):
Islam's Missionary Women
Hirsi Ali and Knopf Canada
All about Ayaan
All About Ayaan Part II
The Vacillation Hiris Ali, or All About Ayaan Part III
Hirsi Ali on the View From the Right
More on Hirsi Ali and Her Disdain for Christianity
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Latest Update
Hirsi Ali's Advice to Geert Wilders
Hirsi Ali and Ferguson busy making babies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Auster/Asrat Interaction: Saving the West and Other Urgent Matters
In my last post, I wrote of my first posted interaction in November 6, 2008 with Larry Auster's View From the Right. I did a search at VFR's site to see if I was correct, and in fact, my first posted comment was as an anonymous KPA, in the article Minority Female Republicans For Diversity, written on May 9th, 2006. That is a couple of years earlier than what I thought.
Here is what I wrote in 2006 as KPA, commenting on the article:
KPA writes:
Mr. Auster,I commented on this interaction, again at VFR, which I wrote on June 19, 2012:
I admire your fairness and generosity towards all types of people. Those who may have called you racist are using the term erroneously. Racial pride does not equal racist.
I had noticed your staunch support for Hirsi Ali, when I could see months before that she had no intention to really help the Netherlands, but was focused on her own status as female, Muslim (and I suppose black too).
Malkin seems also intent on vociferously asserting herself. I always find that such passionate self-justification (maybe to feel a part of the rest) is a symptom of insecurity and dare I say, inferiority.
Perhaps all these non-white women need to do is to have a certain humility. To agree and accept the fact that America was founded by other white nations. That a Philippino or a West African population could never have created what the British did.
And if that becomes too difficult, then stay away from public life, rather than eventually become hypocrites.
Although, one final thing that I may add. Race is war in a sense. Each one wants supremacy over the other. Rice may very well envision a land full of powerful blacks, and Malkin may lapse at times into a vision of a world of powerful browns.
Well, we certainly are headed for interesting times!
It was fun to go through your search engine to find my first emails to you. I used my initials KPA then, and I think I identified myself as being from Canada since the beginning.Larry added the article I had written for VFR, Christian Tolerence, Islamic Jihad:
From what I can find, my first email to you was on May 9, 2006. The thread was on how nonwhites, even the “conservative” ones, push for the advancement of nonwhites at the expense of whites, as well as on Hirsi Ali, Islam, Western culture, gender, and what I thought were race “wars.” Quite a post! And I declared myself your ally!
My second comment, in the entry, “The enemy is not jihad,” deals with more pressing and tangible material, namely: Islam’s incursions into Western society, from cultural strongholds to actual preparations for jihad. This was in September 2006. I am surprised that I understood (I think) the problem so well so far back, when few people were talking or writing about the reality of Islam.
It is interesting that Laura Wood, in her first email to you, was also concerned about religion (or the loss of Christianity).
It seems that spiritual and religious matters are at the forefront of the West’s problems, and the decline of religion makes it easier to dismantle the civilization.
Also see the article Kidist wrote for VFR in 2007 (when she still was ID’d as “KPA”), in which she told how the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia’s tolerance toward its Muslim minority in the 16th century enabled the Muslims to launch a jihad.
Addendum: The View From the Right search engine, in the right margin of the VFR website provides shortcuts to the posted articles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Broadway Burqa
Billboard at 52nd Street and Broadway in New York City
I usually like Megyn Kelly, who has a program called The Kelly File over at Fox News. I think she is very smart, and often amuses, and surprises, her hosts with her original twists on their commentaries.
In her show a couple of days ago, her lame duck panel all say that the billboard I've posted "doesn't offend" them. One tries to fine-tune it saying that he doesn't have a problem with an American soldier marrying a Muslim woman, but that this full-gear Islamic garb is what bothers him. I.e. the "moderate vs. extremist" debate which should have long been resolved by now.
Kelly tries to bring in the "radicalized," i.e. "extremist" argument in, but she doesn't go far enough. She could have interrupted one of the speakers to make her point, but she didn't, and I can only conclude that she mostly agrees with them.
Muslims themselves have told us in as many words that the Koran is what they follow. A "modern" Muslim woman, wearing the latest from Chanel, will at some point have to confront the Koran. And this usually happens with her children. Whether they grow up in Iran or Canada, these offspring at some point have to accept or reject (there is no middle ground) Islam, even as their mothers disguise their true feelings with Western fashion.
In my mall in Mississauga (Ontario), I see more and more young women, in their early twenties, walking around in groups wearing the head-covering (for now). They try to "modernize" it - accessorize would be a better word - with make up and tight jeans, but they are only one garment away from the full-body garb that Kelly's panel seems to abhor.
Of course, the panelists point is that they don't want to be "racist." But their "tolerance" is only inviting intolerance. Muslims have no choice but to be Muslims. Their Koran mandates it.
Some notes:
- The billboard was rejected initially by the advertising company.
- The couple on the billboard is a "real life" American soldier and his Muslim wife. The wife apparently wore the full Muslim clothing for the advertisement. But this proves my point that under every "modern, Western" Muslim woman is a Koran-following Muslim woman.
Below is the panel on the billboard, at The Kelly File:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
"Je pense que mon métissage est une force"
Miss France 2014 being crowned
We think that through our multicultural mind-set, other cultures will follow our (pious) example.
Well, people don't want to change.
The new Miss France is a metisse: the offspring of a black mother and a white father.
I've tried to find a current definition (and translation) of "metissage" but have decided to keep the word in its French. Tiberge from Gallia Watch has come to the same conclusion, and explains her decision here. She writes:
Here is my rendition of his words. It is far from perfect, because his grammar seems a bit off at times. Except for two places, I have retained the French word "métissage" (crossbreeding), and it's various verbal and adjectival forms, since "crossbreeding", "racial mixing" and other similar terms don't always convey the right meaning. "Crossbreeding" sounds too scientific, as when farmers crossbreed crops. "Miscegenation" is too technical and refers to marriage. "Mongrelization" and "bastardization" are too graphic. It looks as if "métissage" will join "laïcité" and "communautarisme" as French words that are so troublesome, it's better to just leave them.This Metisse Miss France says:
"I think that my metissage is a strength."
Which is a variation on "Diversity Our Strength."
She says about her "metissage":
Je pense que mon métissage est une force. Ca montre que la France d’aujourd’hui est une France mélangée où il y a toutes les cultures. Et je pense que beaucoup de personnes peuvent se retrouver en moi, que ce soit les Français de souche ou les Français d’origines diverses.--------------------------------------
I think my miscegenation is a strength. It shows that today's France is a mixed France, which has all cultures. And I think that many people can identify themselves in me, whether they are "les Français de souche" or those french from diverse origins .Some notes on the translation:
- "find themselves in me" implies a deep, even ancestral identification rather than through skin color or looks.
- "Les Français de souche" is a difficult phrase to translate, and Tiberge has given a brief definition here, where she writes: "[I]n French the word "souche" means "root", a "Français de souche" being, therefore, an ethnic Frenchman."
- Rather than say "French of diverse cultures" Miss France goes one step back and says French of diverse origins, as though these are not French people - i.e. les Français de souche - but other peoples of the world. But more specifically, she means French of diverse origins who come from non-European countries.
Miss France is pretty. I thought she was Arab when I first saw her photo, and that her "metissage" was white and Arab. But, here are her parents:
Miss France's parents
Her father is from Orleans, the heartland of France, in the beautiful Loire Valley, in whose town center stands a statue of Joan of Arc.
Her mother is from the west African country Benin.
Statue of Joan of Arc in the city square of Orleans
Statue of King Toffa in Porto Novo, Benin
She looks nothing like either of them. How does she identify with her parents? Children often resemble at least one of their parents, and if they have siblings, the resemblances would be distributed amongst the two parents. They can say "I come from that family," which of course leads to the bigger identification of "I come from that culture," and eventually "I come from that country."
Although Miss France's mother speaks fluent French, she has a slight accent. French is the official language of Benin, which also has a plethora of indigenous languages. Most African countries which were colonized by the British or the French use these European languages as their official ones, but also speak one or more other native language.
I wonder how Flora reacted to her mother's accent growing up? Young children are very discerning of differences. This must have accentuated her mother's "otherness" to her even more. Her father, like her, speaks French like a Frenchman.
Miss France has to invent an identity for her amorphous and difficult-to-identify mixed-parentage of such different racial and national backgrounds. Even countries where metissage is common in the core identity of the country, like Brazil, for example, the strong and confident groups are not the metisse, but those who claim a particular racial group, like blacks or whites. In Canada, there is a racial group called Metisse, but they have never forged alliances either with the "Natives Canadians," i.e. those with Indian ancestry, or with whites. Their cultural and political, and even personal, strength is minimal.
I don't know how strong metissage will prove in France. I don't think it is a strength, as Flora says above. Whites may be having a hard time identifying their whiteness with strength, but there is a group which is not at all shy of doing so, and it is growing in strength and in numbers: Muslims. And this group doesn't tolerate any kind of metissage, either in racial or religious terms. It jealously guards its religious, and cultural, identity. And it eventually seeks to put everyone within its own religious identity, possibly with hierarchical categorizations of Arab Muslims at the top and with white and black Muslims at the bottom of the ladder. The religious superiority of Islam is mandated through their religious book, the Koran. Muslims show this repeatedly throughout history in whatever country they have amassed numbers any strength. Why should France be any different? Where would the black and white metisse like Flora fall under this categorization?
Here is Flora's more specific association with her African roots:
"Je suis franco-béninoise. Je mets en avant mes deux origines. Mes parents ont une association au Bénin, qui vient en aide aux enfants et s'occupe du forage. Au cours de mon année, je souhaite soutenir l'insertion des femmes dans le travail et l'alphabétisation", a-t-elle expliqué après son sacre.Below is my translation:
I am Franco-Beninese. I give equal importance to both my backgrounds. My parents have an association in Benin, which helps children and drills wells. During my reign, I hope to provide work and literacy for women [in the Benin project, I presume].In the Wikipedia definition of Beninese (the English translation for Béninois) such a person is:
From Benin, or of Beninese descent.Flora thus identifies with the culture (or racio-culture) as well as the nationality of Benin.
Her metissage does not place her white and black backgrounds on an equal level: she is more black than white. Her diversity does not put all cultures on an equal footing: she is more Béninoise than Française.
Whenever a mixed-race child with one parent who is white and the other Asian, African or Hispanic, is asked to chose his identity, he will always identify with the non-white parent. This seems to be the rule of racial identity.
This of course also leads to identification with the non-white parent's cultural and national background, even as this mixed-race child lives, and benefits from, the culture, civilization and accomplishments of whites.
I will try to refine this and coin a definition (or definitions) in the manner of: First Law of non-whites' racial and cultural identification.
Flora in Benin as a small girl, visiting her cousins, as Mr. Coquerel informs us in this video.
Her parents kept her in direct contact with her mother's country from an early age.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Slaughter of the Lambs
Christine Tasin, founder of Résistance Républicaine
[I should add that made the collage above. News media are too cautious to lay blame, and especially with religious implications, as I fasion Tasin to do above. I don't think she even sees the problem in religious terms, but in cultural ones.]
Tiberge at GalliaWatch has a post on the Muslim holiday Aid-el-Kebir.
She writes:
On October 15, and for three days thereafter, thousands of sheep were slaughtered in France in the annual Muslim blood-bath called Aïd-el-Kébir (or Aïd-el-Adha). Belfort, in the region of Franche-Comté, was one of many cities to host the Islamic spectacle of ritual sacrifice, and, because of the magnitude of the deed, gained some notorious publicity. Christine Tasin, founder of Résistance Républicaine attended the ceremony in Belfort (from outside the improvised slaughterhouse) and engaged in a bitter quarrel with Muslims who interviewed her (video above [here]). Veterinarian Alain de Peretti, who administers the anti-halal website Vigilance Halal, wrote the following article that also appears at Riposte Laïque.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Reprise: Moratorium on Islamic Representations
I wrote the blog entry Moratorium on exotic representations almost five years ago. The problems, and my appeal, are still relevant (and even more so) today. I wrote the post at my archived blog Our Changing Landscape, where I was chronicling Islamic incursions into our societies.
Perhaps a more appropriate title for the post, which better describes our current problems, would be: Moratorium on Islamic representations.
I understand the attraction to the beauty of Islamic art, which is really Islamic design (figurative representation is prohibited in most Islamic art). But, the intent of the art is contrary to our Christian beliefs, and its mesmerizing and hypnotic designs can lead us to stray.
Below are some posts, including an article, which I wrote on the topic.
There are many more posts at Our Changing Landscape, classified alphabetically from Art to Women, as well as articles, interviews, "conversations," and and other blogs and websites, all describing, chronicling and warning against this "changing landscape."
At the bottom of this post, I have posted a comparison between the Jihadi's and the Crusader's swords. I found the image for the post on the web, on a blog titled Historical Novel Review. The image is an illustration for a book titled: The Sword of Faith. The blogger who posted the book cover writes:
Two larger than life men are at the heart of this sweeping epic. One is Saladin, the charismatic and chivalrous Saladin who staunchly conducts himself with honour even though his followers did not always obey his orders. He is driven to defeat and oust the foreign Christians forever from his lands. His rival is Richard the Lionheart, the pious and gallant English prince and king, who aims to re-conquer Jerusalem, the city the Christians lost to Saladin years before. Both men believe themselves called by God to lead their armies to victory against each other.We are back at romanticizing Muslims, Islam and Jihad. The book was written in 2010, ten years after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The author, Richard Warren Field, clearly spent some years thinking about, drafting, writing, then publishing the book. It might be safe to say that he started the project after a buffer lapse following 2001 (around 2003/4?). Here, at his blog, is his misinformed idea about Islam and Muslims. He says things like:
I learned quickly that there is a constructive, altruistic side to Islam, historically, and in the present-day. What Western European historians commonly call the “Dark Ages” occurred while Muslims were experiencing their “Golden Age.” Muslims preserved Greek learning and advanced in many intellectual pursuits, including medicine and astronomy. These personal discoveries factor into the themes of The Swords of Faith. Knowing these facts beckons us to reach out to moderate Muslims, to Muslims who embrace the constructive and altruistic aspects of their faith. Then, together, we can defeat the fanatic terrorists trying to hijack Islam.That is how short our memories are, or how clouded (we still categorize Muslims between moderate and extreme, a categorization which they themselves reject). But Muslims' memories are long, and wrathful. Gullible Westerners fit right into their plans. Here is Lawrence Auster's two-part article:
- The Search for Moderate Islam: Part I-------------------------------------------------------------
- The Search for Moderate Islam: Part II
- The Search for Moderate Islam: Part II Concluded
Full Niqab in Full Daylight
November 27, 2008
This is what I saw crossing the street while stopping at a red light in downtown Toronto. Well, the one I saw was all in black, which was even more frightening.
It was shocking. A small, squat woman, dressed from head-to-toe in this garb. I have never seen anyone come out dressed in full niqab, as it is called, in full daylight in the city.
It shows a tremendous amount of confidence for her to walk out like this, probably the only one in the streets.
But not for long. If one dares to come out like this, there must be hundreds others getting ready to do so. Slowly, like the less intrusive hijab, this full-length dress is being introduced into our landscape.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moratorium on exotic representations
September 26, 2008
I understand and appreciate fully the creative desire at times to represent "exoticism." And this is just what I did with my gouache print design which I did a couple of years ago entitled "Desert Jewels." I'm pretty sure it is the turquoise domes of the Iraqi landscapes which inspired me to do this.
But, this type of occasional representation is a far cry from the stories of design and fashion changes that our Muslim residents are planning for our cities.
Desert Jewels
[Design by: KPA]
With sadness, I have to conclude that exoticism has to be out for now. And we are far better off going back to our original landscape to reinforce it back into our psyche.
Fortunately, I did just that last year, with my Trillium and Queen Anne's Lace series.
Trillium and Queen Anne's Lace
[Design By: KPA]
Update: August 12, 2010
Moratorium on exotic representations
I have already posted my article Stealthy Islamic Inroads into our culture (published at Chronwatch.com) at a recent blog post, but it bears referencing once again since it documents the cultural (and not just political and religious) inroads Islam is making into our society.
------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim Girl Magazine
September 26, 2008
Muslim Girl with her patriotic hijab; Western Girl trying new styles
Muslim Girl Magazine is now available as a glossy print in major book stores like Barnes and Nobles in the U.S. and Indigo/Chapters in Canada. It also has an online version.
Not only will our streets show an ever-increasing population of hijab and other Muslim fashion, but so will our newstands.
This is another major inroad into our landscape. No longer will the fashions of Vogue and Elle adorn our magazine shelves, but a new and alien image - of non-fashion becoming fashion - will start to compete for magazine shelves. How many variations of hijab styles will we see?
The launching issue of Muslim Girl had a real Muslim girl (as all the editions promise to do). What is extraoridanry about this issue is how the editors wanted to make it look like any other American girl's magazine, all through careful juxtapostitions of words and imagery.
A small American flag showing mainly the stars, with a glimpse of the stripes. These stripes are then continued in the hijab pattern the girl is wearing. The captions prominently say "Growing up American." Yes, as a Muslim Girl.
Now, Western Girls can join in all the fun that Muslim Girl describes through the fresh and airy articles. In fact, those bandana-headscarves can start the ball rolling.
------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic style facade in a quiet residential area
September 27, 2008
Small, ominous signs of Muslim presence are cropping up in residential areas. This new building in the down town of a Canadian city, is a 21st century version of the Moorish Revival which occurred in cities in Canada around the 19th century. What is different about this new resurgence is that it is also accompanied by large Muslim groups, who are building their other institutions to continue their cultural and religious practices here. It is more of an insurgence.
But, the more we get used to these ogee arches in ordinary buildings, the more we will be accepting when more radical shapes likes mosque domes and minarets. It is after all, just “architecture.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Start small, and get bigger
September 27, 2008
By now, most of us would have become used to the "halal" signs which periodically spring up in shops we would not normally enter. After all, shop owners have the right to sell what they want, as long as it is legal. Although talking about legality, it was in one of those kinds of shops where Somalis were (are?) illegally selling their drug, khat, in various Toronto locations.
And as always with Muslims' presence, it gets bigger and more aggressive. They flex their muscles to see how far they can really go, withdraw slightly until they can spring back again.
Halal signs from small, privately owned ethnic stores, to signs of halal "certification", to billboards for fast food chains on highways. Then, take over the whole world, of course.
How ever did we get here?
So audacious have halal-proponents in fast food restaurants become that in two McDonald's restaurants in Australia, there were non-Muslim customers who were unaware that they were eating halal food.
Here's a quote from the story:
A Catholic Church spokesman said non-Muslims deserved to know if the food was halal before buying. But he said there was no biblical reason for Christians to avoid halal food.Just how the Muslims like it. Plenty of koranic reasons not to eat non-halal meat, but we Catholics et al. will be happy to oblige our dear Muslim folk.
And we wouldn't even see anything unusual about huge billboards like this in Dearborn, Michigan. Another KFC? Well, let's just have some, the meat is even blessed. But first, start with the less conspicuous halal Subway sign on a wall in a food court (this time in Sidney, Australia), then you can supersize.
And by the way, the Arabic script in the Subway sign? That spells out "halal". That, and other words, will soon be part of our "vocabulary".
More wings, and authenticated halal fast food--including pizza--available in 150 restaurants in downtown Toronto.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article:
July, 7, 2008
Stealthy Islamic inroads into our culture
(Originally published at Chronwatch.com)
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jihadi's Executioner's Saber vs. The Christian's Piercing Tool
September 21, 2013
Here is the image of swords I found on the cover of the book The Sword of Faith. It is fascinating to compare the swords:
- The Cursader's sword is sharp, long and thin. Its purpose is to pierce the enemy with one accurate thrust, in a vulnerable part of his body (his heart, liver, etc.) and to kill him instantly. There isn't rage of anger behind the thrust as much as a desire to make a clean and efficient kill: to be rid of the enemy.
- The Jihadist's sword (a type of sabre known as a scimitar) is more ornate, with its curved blade and decorated handle. It looks like a heavier weapon than the Cursader's sword, with a thick section at the curve.
It's purpose is to sweep the sword across, and decapitate the enemy, or remove a limb or a body part. It is difficult to cut off a man's head. Accuracy is not required as much as force. If one gets the sword near the general position of the neck, then a forceful swoop will get anything off.
Removing the head is also a sure way of killing the enemy. But, with a trophy at the end: the enemy's head.
I can envision a Jihadist killing his enemy with his sabre/sword while emitting loud sounds of rage, or even crying out "Allahu Akbar" Every ounce of his body is engulfed with this rage. His rage is Allah's rage, and Allah's rage is his rage.
The Christian crusader would be quieter, and even quiet. He is not killing in revenge or anger. He is killing remove the enemies and obstacles of God. His efficiency and precision is to get to that point as quickly as possible. He knows God is watching his moves, and his soul. Even on the battlefield, he has to remain pure.
Here is a site on weapons of the Middle Ages, describing the oriental sabre, known as the scimitar:
ScimitarAnd I got all this just from analyzing the two swords from a design point of view!
This weapon was a type of sword most commonly associated with the Saracens in the Holy Land who fought against the Crusaders
Used for slicing attacks and often used from horseback
Scimitars had a distinct curved blade ending with a sharp point
The blades had two styles - long, narrow curved blades or deeply curved, very wide blades
The length of the blades ranged from 30 to 36 inches (76 to 92 centimetres)
Designs of scimitars varied accommodating use as one or two-handed weapons
Used as a close contact weapon and also used from horseback
A blow could apply tremendous force inflicting significant injury to a knight in armor
The weapon was primarily used for cutting or slicing an opponent and was capable of cutting off the limbs or head of an enemy in one stroke
Type or group of weapons - Cutting Weapon
Here is what Wikipedia says about the scimitar:
A scimitar is a backsword or sabre with a curved blade, originating in Southwest Asia (Middle East). The Arabic term saif translates to "sword" in general, but is normally taken to refer to the scimitar type of curved backsword in particular.The whole Wikipedia post on scimitars describing the East and West variations in sword design, is very interesting.
The curved sword or "scimitar" was widespread throughout the Muslim world from at least the Ottoman period (but a lot of similar sword like Zulfikar, al-Mikhdham, al-Qadib... etc. were already used by Arabs), with early examples dating to Abbasid era (9th century) Khurasan. The type harks back to the makhaira type of antiquity, but the Arabic term saif is a loan from Greek xiphos (the straight, double-edged sword of Greek antiquity). The Persian sword now called "shamshir" appears by the 12th century and was popularized in Persia by the early 16th century, and had "relatives" in Turkey (the kilij), the Mughal Empire (the talwar).
[...]
Scimitars were used in horse warfare because of their relatively light weight when compared to larger swords and their curved design, good for slashing opponents while riding on a horse. The curved design allowed riders to slash enemies and keep riding without getting stuck as stabbing with straight swords on horseback would. Mongols, Rajputs and Sikhs used scimitars in warfare, among many other peoples.
Many Islamic traditions adopted scimitars, as attested by their symbolic occurrence, e.g. on the Coat of arms of Saudi Arabia.
The earliest known use of scimitars is from the 9th century, when it was used among Turkic and Tungusic soldiers in Central Asia.
The scimitar is also used in Saudi Arabia as an executioner's tool for beheading.
Left: Jihadist Flag
Right: Flag of Saudi Arabia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, September 13, 2013
With a Cross at the Helm
Crusaders attacking Muslims
From a fourteenth-century manuscript
(Bibliothèque Boulogne-sur-Mer)
I didn't write anything on September 11, the morbid anniversary of the 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in New York by Muslims. What is there to say? Now, twelve years later, it looks like we have learnt nothing from those attacks, and are meekly waiting for another (or blithely going about our own ways).
Laura Wood at The Thinking Housewife writes:
In a 2006 post at Gates Of Vienna, Baron Bodissey described the Battle of Vienna on September 11, 1683, when the Christian army under Jan Sobieski, the King of Poland, ended the Muslim siege of the city.A commentator at her site writes:
It is good to be reminded of what should have been Christendom’s conclusive triumph over Islam, in the persons of the Ottoman besiegers of Vienna in 1683I think we are at a more difficult juncture than ever before. The Christian spirituality of the world, and especially the Western world, has diminished. Are we ever going to get those armies which march forward with the cross at their helm?
[...]
So while we should lament that, through our moral weakness, Vienna was not the last word in the struggle between Islam and the West, we can draw hope from its example that the West can endure if we can only summon the will to prevail.
I think it is still possible, but it will be a difficult undertaking. The boldness of the Muslim world has occurred now because of our spiritual weakness. Muslims are not weak. They know they come in the name of Allah. We have to counter that by marching in the name of God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, September 8, 2013
A Little Bit of History, And a Good Bit of Logic
On January 2007, almost seven years ago, I wrote this:
I strongly believe that Muslims are not to be underestimated in any manner whatsoever.I wrote this in the very last line of an article, which was posted on Lawrence Auster's View From the Right, titled: Ethiopian Christian Tolerance, Ethiopian Islamic Jihad.
Almost all the media relates the conflict in the Middle East to a regional conflict of Arab territorial incursions. And these Middle East "experts" don't bring up Islam as a decisive factor in these "conflicts." Before I read Bat Ye'or's Europe, Globalization, and the Coming of the Universal Caliphate (in 2011), and Sam Solomon's Al-Yahud: Eternal Islamic Enmity and the Jews (in 2010), I was aware that the "conflict in the Middle East" is really the recurring attempt by Muslims to turn (return) the world to Allah and to Islam, which is essentially a spiritually mandated mission, clearly delineated in the Koran.
A little bit of history, and a good bit of logic, is all I had. Larry was much further ahead, and more comprehensive, both in his historical knowledge and his analytical process. He had, by the time I sent him that article, written many articles for various journals, and many unpublished which he posted on his website, on that very subject, and with those very conclusions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)